Conquer Club

I would like to report people for hurting people's feelings. Before I didn't bother because I thought that people who hurt other people's feelings are punished by being widely recognized as the jerks that they are. However, I have recently learned (from Suggs' case) that insulting groups of people is punishable by forum freeze (Twill's term) and since I KNOW that Suggs would have been punished (despite the fact that he apologized) regardless which group of people he offended (and not on the fact that certain hypocrites think that the feelings of USA citizens are the only feelings that matter ), I decided to take put some effort into finding a few other cases of such abuse:


CASE 1(concerning Lakota tribe)

THORNHEART wrote:ok sorry for who ever asked for a link i dont have one i just read it off the fox news home page....


the fact is not that we took the land from them...which we did...which is debateable over ethics( personally i think it was ok since it was just country expansion as they and all ohter countries had participated in we just happened to win) the point of the post was to show the obserdity of them actually thinking the can leave the united states! and have their own little indian nation....umm didnt we already fight a war about this ...anyways i dont think anyone cares and doubt it will last a month before the come begging for their monthly social security pyments for their booze and cigs

In this case THORNHEART mocks the casulties that Lakota people took from the hand of the USA army. He also implies that majority of Lakota people abuse alcohol (second underlined part).


CASE 2(concerning Lakota tribe)

Der Fuhrer wrote:

THORNHEART wrote:lol the lakota indians just anulled their peace treaty with the united states as of today...they say they are no longer americans and were better off as a sovereign indian tribe ...they say the sucicide rates among their teens went up 120 percent since 1840 thats why they r leaving the usa...and that all their lands(indian resevations land that we tax payers pay for) is now sovereign idian lands not accountable to usa standards or laws ...lol what r they gonna go on the war path or something

That's what we white people get for being so 'civilised' and letting these poor excuses for retards keep some land. We should have either absorbed them completely into our societies, to the point of diluting them right out of existence, or we should have completely destroyed them.

In this case racism has been spiced up with advocating genocide. (I am suprised how all those hearts that have been broken by Suggs' celebration of a mere terrorist attack haven't been so much as touched by this call for genocide )

CASE 3(concerning Iraqi infrastructure)

PhatJoey wrote:

comic boy wrote:You are celebrating the partial restoration of infrastructure that was destroyed by who ?

It was NOT destroyed in the war. These are things that DID NOT EXIST THERE prior to the war.

You banned Suggs because he talked in an unproper way about the event which caused 2,974 fatalities (9/11 attacks). PhatJoey has (in the above-quoted post) insulted the people of Iraq who's fatalities are mesured in HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, by implying that they had no infrastructure prior to the USA invasion. Basicaly, he called them barbarians. I believe that is an insult to Iraqi people.

CASE 4(AIDS patients)

Napoleon Ier wrote:Perhaps before talking out of their AIDS ridden arses, radiojake and co. would like to join the fucking t-owelhead-aleban, seeing as how they dissaprove of the US so much.

In this post Napoleon uses the words "AIDS ridden" as an insult. This is surely painfull to read for people who have AIDS.


These are just a few of examples of many, many insults and hurtfull things that are posted daily on this site. However, insults like these go unpunished unless the insult is directed toward 9/11 victims. Xtratabasco used to post bunch of threads against Mexican people. And then he got banned for calling Soundout a name.

In conclusion, Twill, I would like state that IMO you have three options:

1. You can punish the 4 people quoted above with the same punishment that you have awarded Suggs.

2. You can decide to un-ban Suggs and allow freedom of speach on the Forum, regardless of WHICH group of people someone is insulting.

3. You can accept the fact that you are a hypocrite and learn to live with this knowledge.

Go mandy

way to go!

nicely said

Some good points, but I disagree with what you said about "case 3". The poster didn't insult anyone.

DukeToshiro wrote:Some good points, but I disagree with what you said about "case 3". The poster didn't insult anyone.

I assume that you are not a from Iraq?

Der Fuhrer has been banned, dunno about the others.

graeme89 wrote:Der Fuhrer has been banned, dunno about the others.

I though that he might be, but I wasn't sure. There was no intervention of the mods in the thread and his posts haven't been deleted.

Hoy vey. It's supposed to be a holiday.


Thank you very much mandy for taking the time to try to bring justice to those who so often have a voice [sic]. I agree that people often over react to situations and have a tendency to treat some lives and some opinions with greater weight than others.

Rather than fall into the same trap here and over react to suggs's case, let's have a quick review of said "cases":

Case at hand

This thread celebrates the specific deaths of the people in the attack, with no argument, elaboration or content. It is a specific attempt to draw an angry reaction (which it did) and hurt people (which it did) which falls squarely inside the definition of trolling we hold at this site (the intentional attempt to harm a person or the site by posting content known to be psychologically or otherwise damaging).

This was posted in the off-topics board which would be the wrong place for a flame or, at the best possible interpretation of this post, spam. On both these issues, Suggs has been formally warned or reprimanded before (9/25, 10/10, 10/14, 11/05, 11/20 and most recently 12/06).

Of the other cases you referred to, Cases 1 and 4 are a bit out of line I agree but were not the focus of the post (they weren't Trolls) and had content surrounding them (they weren't spam), Case 3 was taken out of context and you are probably reading something that isn't there (while Suggs' comments were overt and specific) and Case 2, to my knowledge has been dealt/is being dealt with.

First Suggs 9/11 "Case"

The original thread where Suggs attempted to test the waters. This got him an informal warning when it could easily have gotten him worse, especially considering other posts he was making at that point.


The Xtra case

You bring up Xtra and his Mexican threads. Suggs had plenty of threads on the Mexican "issue" for which both received warnings (xtra in July and August, Suggs in October)
Xtra was later banned for repeatedly flaming outside of flame wars after multiple warnings and reprimands, not for "calling soundout a name"


Now, my conclusion is that IMHO the following happened:

1. The 4 cases you mentioned, if they warrant punishment (I'll look into it when it's not midnight on Christmas eve), are, generally, on their first warning which is generally informal and in no way warrants the same punishment awarded to Suggs.

2. Suggs got the punishment he got for repeated and intentional trolling. Freedom of speech, even in the "land of the free" is limited by when it incites harm against others. Here, we take the liberty (which is our right) to limit it when it intentionally provokes harm or damage to person or community...regardless of which group is being harmed or damaged.

3. You neglected the fact that you are whining because you yourself have placed Suggs above others and somehow think he is special and deserves special treatment, much like many here feel 9/11 deserves special treatment. Neither do, and both will be treated the same way any other is.

4. Happy holidays.

Suggs' forum freeze will stand. If he wishes to take the issue up with me he may, I'm here all week.

Have a good one. Thanks for your concern.
Twill